Re: Re 2: Proposal for charter changes, in view of the formal objections by Vivliostyle & Disruptive Innovation

> On 26 Apr 2017, at 10:24, Daniel Glazman <> wrote:
> Le 25/04/2017 à 12:43, Ivan Herman a écrit :
>> Daniel,
>> I have just made an update to the proposed charter text (still in the separate branch[1]):
>> - separated the rec-track and non-rec-track documents in the list of input documents
>> - I have also added a reference to HTML, CSS, and SVG in the list of input documents with some general text on why those documents appear there
>> Are these o.k. with you?
> Sorry for the delay, I had too much on my radar yesterday to
> review your changes.
> Your changes are fine by me with one exception, that I spent a lot
> time thinking about: I still think the two last sentences of the last
> paragraph of the Scope section, starting with "EPUB 4 must not..."
> should be dropped or modified enough to be a recommended option and not
> an enforcement any more. This is something to be decided by the WG and
> such a technical choice should not be enforced by the Charter. To be
> more precise, I can't accept the too strong "must not" and "must be
> a type".

Keep the sentence with s/must/should/? Would that work?


> With a compromise there, I would withdraw my formal objection.
> Hth.
> </Daniel>

Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 09:13:37 UTC